Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?

[Marblehead]

Yes, you can still experience a persons enlightened nature or potential as your own actuality in perception. Therefore one can remain internally enlightened even when bombarded with the seemingly unenlightened because you are seeing the liberated nature past the appearance of bondage. As unlimited-ness acts as limited as a side effect of unlimited-ness. As Blake said, about cleaning the doors of perception and seeing the infinite nature of everything.

 

Hehehe. I sure wish you would lighen up a bit with your Buddhist terminology because you really have some good things to say when you just speak your self-inspirations. I agree with you but your words are funny.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

Hehehe. I sure wish you would lighen up a bit with your Buddhist terminology because you really have some good things to say when you just speak your self-inspirations. I agree with you but your words are funny.

 

Peace & Love!

 

I try to be precise through English to the experience beyond words. This tends to make me try new and creative ways to use English in the articulation of spiritual topics.

 

Other than that... I am Buddhist. You use Taoist terms as a Taoist. I use Buddhist.

[Marblehead]

Other than that... I am Buddhist. You use Taoist terms as a Taoist. I use Buddhist.

 

Yeah, we are what we are, ain't we?

 

But if you hang around me very much you are going to change - I promise you that. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

I try to be precise through English to the experience beyond words. This tends to make me try new and creative ways to use English in the articulation of spiritual topics.

 

Other than that... I am Buddhist. You use Taoist terms as a Taoist. I use Buddhist.

 

Your English is neither precise or creative. Chaotic syntax is more appropriate to describe your writing style.

 

 

 

 

ralis

Edited July 21, 2010 by ralis

[3bob]

Nice post Stig.

 

But this brings forward the question, "But if ziran is being natural then isn't it true that even those who have lost the Way are still being natural because they are acting in accordance with what they are at this very point in time?"

 

The point I would make is that nothing unnatural can ever happen. That is, if it is impossible for a particular event to happen at this very point in time then any event that happens is a natural event. So even the lost soul is still being true to his nature even though he has lost his 'original' nature.

 

Peace & Love!

 

"When the individual is zìrán, Heaven, Earth, and Tao align in the clarity of oneness". from Stig

 

Hi MH,

Going back a few posts I apprecaite the sentence above from Stig. And I think that it also points to possible answers regarding your questions in the more recent post above. My interpretation is that when we more or less lose our way we are then being true to the permutations or to the ten thousand, (so to speak) thus identified with and or lost in the ten thousand. (or premutations "born" after the Three)... Further, to be lost in those permutations is not exactly to be un-natural - but to be more or less un-aligned and un-clear regarding the oneness and original Tao (or to try to say it another way: to the Tao being Master instead of to the "ten thousand" being Master) Also, the original nature or Tao can never truly be lost - for if such could be truly lost then all is lost. (beyond any imagining)

 

Om

Edited July 22, 2010 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

 

Hi MH,

Going back a few posts I apprecaite the sentence above from Stig. And I think that it also points to possible answers regarding your questions in the more recent post above. My interpretation is that when we more or less lose our way we are then being true to the permutations or to the ten thousand, (so to speak) thus identified with and or lost in the ten thousand. (or premutations "born" after the Three)... Further, to be lost in those permutations is not exactly to be un-natural - but to be and un-aligned and un-clear regarding the oneness and original Tao (or to try to say it another way: to the Tao being Master instead of to the "ten thousand" being Master) Also, the original nature or Tao can never truly be lost - for if such could be truly lost then all is lost. (beyond any imagining)

 

Om

 

Yes, that is the point I would make in that being 100% materialistic is still Tao. But that's not all there is to life, is it? So yes, "we" may may be lost but we have never really lost Tao because even the material is Tao. And we can always return to the Way because we are always within some aspect of Tao even though it may be at some extreme.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

 

(Wasn't sure if I ought to also post this in the embryonic or longevity breathing thread. But the zi ran's here.)

 

I think it was a relevant post. Thanks.

 

Peace & Love!

[JustARandomPanda]

Wanted to add I've finally found some success in stilling my mind with Zen-style breathing. I just am aware of breathing. I don't bother to "follow" it or "focus" on my dantien or anything else. I found that adding those activities on top of just being aware thwarted me from my goal. My mind is still too jumpy and monkey-ish to be able to manage anything more - at least for now.

 

Supposedly...according to Bill Bodri (if I understood his blog post correctly) he says the Buddha attained his highest insights with this one simple activity...just being aware of his breathing without bothering to add anything else to it.

 

It also is a style of breathing that's popular with Taoists. I guess because they figure awareness of breath will take care of itself.

[Stigweard]

[Stigweard]

[Riyue]

[Brian]

..

[Marblehead]

[gendao]

He has probably turned a lot of people off his form of Buddhism. I know some Buddhists personally, away from these online debates, and they would NEVER knock anyone's practice or claim superiority over another.

What's wrong with being honest? If you believe your way is correct and another's is wrong - what's wrong with telling them? If you truly believe it, might that even be seen as compassionate?

 

I mean, as opposed to the alternative where 1+1=2 and 1+1=3 and it's "rude" to say that one way is more correct?

 

 

 

 

Dao follows "it's" own nature.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Dao follows "it's" own nature.

 

Mutual co-origination... not independent origination. See this statement above seems vague to me, unless I think of it within Buddhist terms, then it makes sense. But that's just me. I think I understand more of what apepch7 said some time ago in this thread and I agree with him that it is not in the ultimate sense, but only in the relative sense, which is an ultimate insight rather than an ultimate essence.

 

But, to say that "Tao follows it's own nature" seems to be very much in contrast to the Buddhas statements' saying that there is not 1 thing nor is there many things, nor is there a non-thing that has it's own nature, neither relative, nor ultimate, and there is not even an infinite thing or non-thing that has it's own nature... according to my spiritual tradition which when you enter this website say's it's ok to talk about.

 

 

Disclaimer:

Do I have to be a new age monist universalist to be here? (please think about the meaning of those terms) Or is it ok to be a Buddhist but open minded individual to be here, no matter how wrong some of the general public think it is to be so? I, personally... really don't mind opposing views and being debated with, without personal attacks. As long as the point is argued, not the person. Attack my belief, intelligently... fine... yes!!

Edited July 23, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Tao99]

.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Tao99

[ralis]

Mutual co-origination... not independent origination. See this statement above seems vague to me, unless I think of it within Buddhist terms, then it makes sense. But that's just me. I think I understand more of what apepch7 said some time ago in this thread and I agree with him that it is not in the ultimate sense, but only in the relative sense, which is an ultimate insight rather than an ultimate essence.

 

But, to say that "Tao follows it's own nature" seems to be very much in contrast to the Buddhas statements' saying that there is not 1 thing nor is there many things, nor is there a non-thing that has it's own nature, neither relative, nor ultimate, and there is not even an infinite thing or non-thing that has it's own nature... according to my spiritual tradition which when you enter this website say's it's ok to talk about.

 

 

Disclaimer:

Do I have to be a new age monist universalist to be here? (please think about the meaning of those terms) Or is it ok to be a Buddhist but open minded individual to be here, no matter how wrong some of the general public think it is to be so? I, personally... really don't mind opposing views and being debated with, without personal attacks. As long as the point is argued, not the person. Attack my belief, intelligently... fine... yes!!

 

 

You are not open minded!

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

deluded, narrow minded, ego stuck, flawed in view, anger driven etc etc etc.

have a good one!!

[Vajrahridaya]

not open minded!

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Disclaimer:

Do I have to be a new age monist universalist to be here?

 

I guess to some I certainly do? :lol:

[Vajrahridaya]

You are not open minded!

 

 

ralis

 

You shouldn't try to read what you don't have the capacity to understand. This is in more ways than 1.

 

P.S. Putting me on ignore might benefit you much more for now.

[Tao99]

.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Tao99

[Vajrahridaya]

I guess you just are in denial that you constantly attack the person instead of the point.

 

Obviously your person is very wrapped up in your belief.

 

How can you deny that you attack the person for being deluded, narrow minded, etc etc?

 

I say the belief is narrow, not the person who does not inherently exist.

You know you do this.

 

No, you do.

 

I think it's because you have delusions about what you are, and have deep seated anger and fear issues driving you, and your view on your Buddhist way is completely flawed, because your way is incomplete.

 

 

 

Sound familiar?

 

Not in tone, wording or intention.

[Tao99]

.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Tao99

[Vajrahridaya]

There you go again - attacking the person (my flaw of being wrapped up in my belief) instead of debating the point.

 

And you do it in a post denying you do this. Classic.

 

I'll point out when you do this to help you see it.

 

I give you permission to win this argument.